Black people are now enslaving white people. Forcing them to work for them for what is called welfare, but is in fact forced labor--forcing people to work without recompense. So the objection to slavery is not sincere. Rather the objection is that blacks want to be the masters.
[The goal is a exchange of white masters for black masters.]
History is I think the main reason for the opposition towards Jesus. Especially the expulsion from Spain is certainly foremost in the minds of most Sephardim. Yet learning the actual history of the bitter struggle to rid Spain of Muslim overlords gave me an idea of why Isabella and Ferdinand thought it would be best not to have a "fifth column" of people that were either active in helping the Muslims, or at least were certainly on the Muslim side in terms of ideology --thinking (as they still do) the Muslims were not idolaters as they think Christians are.
Columbus received his commission to just as Isabella and Ferdinand were entering Granada, the last stronghold of Muslim rule in Spain. And that is exactly when the decree was issued. I.e. in simple terms the king and queen were not making any distinctions at that time. All enemies had to go.
And as for the idea of Christians being idolatrous has seemed to me less than accurate after learning some of the books of Avraham Abulafia [a mystic of the middle ages.] [Only printed recently. Mainly he is brought in the Remak [Rav Moshe of Cordova] and Rav Chaim Vital. I saw his books only in microfilm. Later they were printed.]
So then why would it not be idolatry? You would have to resort to the idea of souls of Emanation [a frequent concept in the Ari/Rav Isaac Luria]. And Emanation is pure Godliness.
The major reason why some rishonim [mediaeval authorities] hold one ought to learn Physics and Metaphysics is that they see this as the fulfillment of the commands to love and fear God. So the issue does not depend on talent. Rather they see these two subjects as an integral part of Torah. But as you can see in the Guide for the Perplexed that they were referring to these subjects as understood by Aristotle. But they have gained in the meantime. So I think that today one ought to learn Physics up until String Theory. Metaphysics is a bit less well established --exactly what it includes. I suggest Kant, Fries, Leonard Nelson. [There is a certain tension between this school of thought and Hegel, but both seem to have good points.]
Kelley Ross has a great web site introducing the approach of Kant and Fries
SPERBER also has a nice essay on this
I can see why the testing system that you find in school is important to some degree. You do not want unqualified people teaching Physics or other subjects. On the other hand, tests can be frustrating and can discourage people.
My feeling is that everyone can learn Physics and Mathematics, but not everyone can be a physics professor.
The first thing one needs is the idea that it is important to learn, even for one that is not particularly talented. Why is it important? Mainly you see this in חובות לבבות ומעלות המידות ומורה נבוכים Obligations of the Hearts, Greatness of Good Character, and the Guide for the Perplexed.
[Ibn Pakuda, Binyamin the doctor, and Rambam/Maimonides.] In particular the Rambam spells it out in the Guide in the parable of the country of the king at the end of vol. III or vol. IV [I forget which].
The next thing one needs is to say the words and go on from beginning to end. That type of fast learning is brought in Gemara, and Ways of the Righteous, and also Rav Nahman of Breslov brings it in Conversations of Rav Nahman 76.
Then the next thing is review. But I have not figured out about review if there is any one method. Myself I go back page by page. But review might have other methods.
It seems to me that I ought to mention a bit of my background. I was at two very great Litvak yeshivas that walk in the path of the Gra: The first was Shar Yashuv in Far Rockaway for what I think was 3.5 years. The second year was tracate Chulin. The third was tractate Ketuboth. Then for half that year was tractate Yevamot. Then I was at the Mir in NY also for about three years and then Israel. During the time I preparing for Israel, I got interested in Rav Nahman of Breslov. And during that first period in Israel, I was pretty much going with the path of Rav Nahman--that is a lot of going out into the forests doing "hitbodadut" [that is private prayer and talking with God in one's own language.]. Looking back on it all it seems to me that I would have done better to stick with the straight Torah approach of the Mir and the Litvak yeshiva, and tried to combine that with the great advice and ideas of Rav Nahman.
That is to say,- I think it would have been better to try to stick with the great aspects of the path of the Gra--in terms of learning Torah and Musar, and to combine that with the good ideas of Rav Nahman.
There is a tendency with Breslov to get off the track of learning Torah and straight Torah. Not that this was any fault of Rav Nahman himself, but there does seem to be that sort of danger. The mistake is understandable since the actual letter of excommunication of the Gra is not well known and who it applied to. What I suggest is that letter of excommunication is valid and yet does not apply to Rav Nahman as you can see if you see the actual language of that letter. I think the actual herem is valid and yet does not apply to Rav Nahman.